‘Christ, the Head of the Church?’ : authority, leadership and organisational structure within the Nkhoma Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian

(1)

Authority, Leadership and Organisational Structure

within the Nkhoma Synod of the Church of Central

Africa Presbyterian

By

Willie Samuel Dalitso Zeze

Dissertation presented for the Degree of Doctor of Theology at

Stellenbosch University (South Africa)

Promoter

Prof. Robert Vosloo

March 2012

(2)

By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification..

Date: 5 March 2012

(3)

Abstract

This dissertation has as its title: ‘Christ, the Head of the Church’: Authority, Leadership and Organisational Structure within the Nkhoma Synod of the Church of Central Africa, Presbyterian. This study affirms the statement that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, noting that this statement of faith entails various assumptions: First, the church has only one Head, that is, Jesus Christ. Secondly, only Jesus Christ must be exalted and have the pre-eminence in the church. Thirdly, this prohibits anyone or any governing assembly to lord it over another one or exercise authority other than the authority from Jesus Christ. Fourthly, Christ is more than the head of the department or the head of any organization in whose absence the church would still be able to function.

In line with these points, in this study the thought of Christ being the Head of the church or the confession of the headship of Christ over the church refers to His leadership, highest authority, and position of superiority and sovereignty. There are many references to the concept of the Headship of Christ in the Bible, confessions of faith, catechisms, and church orders. In light hereof, the question is asked whether the affirmation of the Headship of Christ has found sufficient form in the church polity discourse and practice of the CCAP - Nkhoma Synod. The answer to this question requires an ecclesiological study including the critical examination and evaluation of the Church’s Confessions, Catechism, Church Order, Constitution, Newsletter, and Minutes of its official meetings. Given this, the dissertation is structured as follows:

Chapter 1: The topic and title are introduced, then the research questions and hypothesis. At the heart of this chapter is the question of the understanding of the Nkhoma Synod of Christ’s rule through office-bearers, whereas it omits in its Church Order that Christ exercises his reign and dominion through his Word and Spirit. In the discourse on the Church’s polity this discrepancy has resulted in a tendency of identifying the power and authority of office-bearers with that of Christ. Consequently, the office-bearers can easily claim to have unchallengeable possession of Christ’s power and authority. As a result the authority of Christ’s direct rule through His Word and Spirit is excluded and transferred to the office-bearers who constitute or represent the highest ecclesiastical authority.

Chapter 2: The social-political, economical, religious, and ecclesiastical contexts are described, in which the Nkhoma Synod has found itself. Although church polity and church government are subject to what God has revealed in his Word, which is systematically

(4)

summarized in the confessions, we conclude that in the Nkhoma Synod church polity and church government are sometimes dictated by the existing social-political, economic, religious, and ecclesiastical milieus.

Chapter 3: Definitions of ‘Reformed church polity’ and ‘church government,’ are offered and then the distinctiveness of Reformed church government is described together with some suggestions for present-day Reformed church polity.

Chapter 4: This chapter studies the Church policy sources of the Nkhoma Synod, i.e. the Belgic Confessions of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt. The question is asked whether the Nkhoma Synod used these documents as sources from which it developed its church polity.

Chapter 5: This chapter focuses on the sources for the practice of Church government in the Nkhoma Synod. Special attention will be given to the concept of the headship of Christ and how the Church’s understanding of this notion impacted on its church polity discourse.

Chapter 6: Some important church-political developments within the Nkhoma Synod from 1889 to 2007 are discussed, focusing on issues of authority, leadership, and organizational structure. The question is discussed whether and how the concept of the headship of Christ described in the Zolamulira negatively influenced the Church’s practice of church government.

Chapter 7 draws conclusions from the rest of the chapters. A call is made for a critical-theological examination and evaluation of the church polity discourse and practice of the Nkhoma Synod in the light of remarks made on the preamble of the Zolamulira, as well as in the light of the ideas of John Calvin, the Reformed Symbols of Unity, and other important sources from the Reformed tradition.

(5)

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Polina Kadammanja-Zeze who has continuously stood by my side all these years of study, to my wonderful mother Christina Sajeni Nabanda, to my father Samuel Dalitso Zeze, my father- and mother-in-law Mr Ernest and Mrs Madeta Kadammanja, to my brother Aubrey Zeze, and to our wonderful daughters Chisomo, Chifuniro, son Zikomo, and to our last-born girl Naomi.

(6)

Acknowledgements

The process of my academic learning has reached an important goal, and now I can look back with gratitude. First and foremost I convey my profound thanks to the Almighty God for his continued faithfulness throughout the three years of my studies at the University of Stellenbosch. After Him, I am deeply indebted to my wife, children, parents and in-laws, for their moral and spiritual support rendered during my studies. A special word of thanks I want to give to Rev. Dr. Steven Paas and his wonderful wife Rita for their encouragement and concern, particularly Steven for his careful and thorough editorial work. I sincerely wish to express my gratitude and trust that the Lord will enable Steven and Rita to continue the good work they have done up to now.

I am grateful to Professor Dr. Robert Vosloo and other Professors in the Department of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology at the University of Stellenbosch, and express sincere appreciation for their expert guidance, sharp and critical comments, and input. Despite the urge of his obligations, Professor Vosloo always remained friendly, sensitive and understanding to me and towards my work.

In a special way my thanks go to Rev. Dr. Johann Du Plessis and the staff of Kenridge Congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church for the continued financial assistance rendered for the period of three years, also not forgetting Mickey Bouwer of the Commission For Witness (CFW). Many thanks go to Rev. E.M. Tembo, Rev. A.K. Saka and Rev H. Kaliza and Rev. B. Chitheka, Mr Msanyama, Mr Cees Molinnar for the warm welcome and hospitality I received at their homes and stations. May God richly bless all of you.

My appreciation also goes to Buwa Congregation in the Presbytery of Chileka, CCAP Nkhoma Synod, including the office of the General Secretary, Rev D.K. Chifungo because of seconding me to study at the University of Stellenbosch. Buwa Congregation spiritually, socially, morally and financially supported my family during my absence.

Last but not least, I wish to express gratitude to the members of staff of the University of Stellenbosch Library, the Dutch Reformed Archive in South Africa particularly Mrs M Marlene Schoeman and in Malawi to the Josophat Mwale Institute, and Zomba Theological College, for helping me to access the required documents of Church Order and Church Polity of the CCAP Nkhoma Synod and others. In addition, may the Lord God abundantly bless those whom I have not mentioned, although in some way they have assisted me to reach this goal.

(7)

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1.The Research Topic

This dissertation has as its title: ‘Christ, the Head of the church’: Authority, Leadership and Organisational Structure within the Nkhoma1 Synod of the Church of the Central Africa, Presbyterian.2 It shows that our study affirms the statement of faith that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. We note that this statement of faith entails various assumptions: First, the Church has only one Head, that is, Jesus Christ. Secondly, only Jesus Christ must be exalted and have the pre-eminence in the church. Thirdly, this prohibits anyone or any governing assembly to lord it over another one or exercise authority other than the one from Jesus Christ. Fourthly, Christ is more than the head of the department or the head of any organization in whose absence the church would still be able to function.

In line with these points, in this study the thought of Christ being the Head of the church or the confession of the headship of Christ over the church refers to His leadership, highest authority, and position of superiority and sovereignty (cf. Coertzen 2004:91, 93).

There are many references to the concept of Christ’s headship over the Church in the Bible, confessions of faith, catechisms, and church orders. In the New Testament we read that, ‘Christ rules there above heavenly rulers, authorities, powers, lords; He has a title superior to all titles of authority in this world and in the next word: God put all things under Christ’s feet and gave him to the church as a supreme Lord over all things’ (Eph.1:21,22); ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth’ (Mt.28:18); ‘…He is Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev.17:14) and ‘He is the head of his body, the Church…’ (Col.1:18; cf. Eph.5:22-23).3

1

Lawrence Walter Brown (2004:35) observed that in 1965 the name was still ‘Mkhoma’ Synod, but the change had come when a friend of the late President Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi went to Mkhoma Mission Hospital for treatment. When he got his bill, he crossed out ‘M’ and replaced it with ‘N’, adding a note saying, ‘Nkhoma is the correct spelling’. Because of this note, the Synod changed the spelling of its name.

2

The founders of the CCAP, at the very beginning, decided that the Church should be designed as Church of Central Africa, Presbyterian. The idea of placing Presbyterian at the end of the name was intended to emphasize that the ‘Church of Central Africa’ need not to be, or remain only, Presbyterian. By putting Presbyterian at the end it could then more easly be lopped off as other denominations would join.

3

The concept that ‘Christ is the Head of the Church’ as is noted in the main text of this dissertation derives from the New Testament, particularly from the Pauline letters to the Colossians and Ephesians. Some News Testament commentators on the Pauline letters such as J. Lightfoot (1959:198-201) and J.A Robson 1904:43,103) suggest that Paul himself developed this metaphor based on the physiological conception of his time, i.e. the role of the physical head in relationship to the body. In Ryken, Wilhoit and Longman (1998:368) we read: “Perhaps stimulated by reflecting on the function of the physical head in relation to the body, many ancient and biblical writers used the term head as a symbol for leadership.” My use of the concept of the

(13)

In the Old Testament, we do not find references of the concept of the Headship of Christ but we read that God is a ‘King who rules over all the nations’ (Ps.22:28); He is ‘… a great King who reigns over all the earth’ (Ps. 47:2); He is ‘the Lord who has established His throne in heaven’ and again He is ‘King whose Kingdom rules over all’ (Ps.103:19).

This dissertation, however, is not an exegetical study of the scriptural passages dealing with the Kingship of God or the headship of Jesus Christ. It rather has an ecclesiological focus and is guided by the way in which proponents of the Reformed tradition engaged questions such as: What does it mean to say that Jesus Christ is ‘the head of the church’? What does the headship of Christ over the church imply in matters of church order and church government, daily leadership and practical matters of administration of a church? In particular, the emphasis will be on how the notion of the headship of Christ relates to questions of authority, leadership, and organizational structure within the Nkhoma Synod.

This study involves a critical examination of the official documents of the Nkhoma Synod. Special attention will be given to articles 27-32 of the Belgic Confession of Faith, questions/ answers 31, 50, 51, 83 of the Heidelberg Catechism, the appendix of the Buku La Katekisima (pages 279-287), and the preamble of the Zolamulira: Zopangana ndi Zolangiza.4 How does the idea of Jesus Christ being ‘Head of the church’ function in these texts? That question will guide our inquiry.

The Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt are the three official confessions of the Nkhoma Synod. In the Belgic Confession Jesus Christ is acknowledged as eternal King (article 27), Lord, a universal Bishop (articles 30, 31), Head of the church (articles 29, 31), and Master (article 32). These names are indicative for His highest authority and sovereignty. They denote that not any other person should rule the church or ever assume the position of head of the church (cf. Pauw 1980:384).

The Heidelberg Catechism contains references to the concept of the headship of Christ. In question 50 we read: ‘Why is added, and He sits at the Right hand of God?’ The answer says that Christ ascended into heaven to manifest Himself there as Head of His headship of Christ relates the concept to the issue of leadership and authority in the church. The focus is not so much on the way the concept of the headship of Christ functions in the Bible, but more on how the Reformed tradition (especially Reformed Ecclesiologists) reapproriated this notion of Christ as the Head of the Church. The work of these theologians is of course directly or indirectly in conversation with the Bible. In this dissertation (which is not an exegetical study), however, the focus is more explicitly on the reception of the concept in Reformed Church Polity documents, particularly those from the Malawian church contexts.

4

Zolamulira: Zopangana ndi Zolangiza = Prescriptions: Agreements and Intentions. It refers to rules, resolutions, or advisory decisions.

(14)

church, through whom the Father governs all things …’ Question 51 asks, ‘What profit is this glory of Christ, our Head, to us?’ Answer: ‘First, that by His Holy Spirit, He pours out heavenly gifts upon us, his members; and then that by his power He defends and preserves us against all his enemies.’

Considering these articles, we need to make two comments. First, the phrase ‘He sits at the right hand of God’ points to Christ’s existence as well as to the conviction that the Church is a heavenly work performed on earth, rather than just an earthly society of like-minded people. In this understanding it is evident that office-bearers have no authority of themselves except the authority bestowed on them from heaven. Secondly, article 51 says that the Holy Spirit is involved in all the activities in the Church, including its government. One school of thought likes to stress that this means that office-bearers are not primarily representatives of the church members but of Christ. Allan Janssen (2006:143) elaborates:

‘The office in the church is given to the congregation. … The office originates in no way in the congregation but is the self-presentation of God-in-Christ in the congregation. … The offices come to the church; they do not rise out of the church. They do not represent the church; nor do they represent the faith of the church. They represent Christ.’

Concerning the Holy Spirit, he (2006:145, 147) writes:

‘While the offices represent Christ, they do so through the work of the Holy Spirit … the work of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit … The Holy Spirit uses the offices in this mediation, this representation. In the use of the offices, the holy Spirit appropriates to us all his treasures in order that we may be united and engrafted into Christ … and that salvation may be worked out within us sacramentally, culturally, liturgically, confessionally, diaconically, mystically, culturally and politically.’

Given the fact that the Reformed heritage of the Nkhoma Synod resulted in many references to the headship of Christ in its documents, it’s important to have a look at its understanding of this central belief. Therefore, we critically examine this notion in the Church Order (Zolamulira: Zopangana ndi Zolangiza) of the Nkhoma Synod, particularly its preamble, which stipulates that:

(15)

‘Ambuye wathu Yesu Kristu ndiye Mutu wa Eklesia ...Ulamuliro wake wa pa Eklesia uchitika ndi audindo monga abusa, oyang’anira (akuluampingo) ndi atumiki oyikidwira ntchitoyo. … Audindo achita ulamuliro umenewu mwa misonkhano inayi Msonkhano wa oyang’anira (akuluampingo), Presbiterio, Sinodi ndi Sinodi wa Mkulu’. [Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18). … His authority is exercised by office-bearers such as ministers, elders and deacons (Acts 6:1-7; Rom. 10:14-17; Philipp. 1:1; Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5 Eph. 4:11; 16). … These office-bearers exercise the authority in the church through four assemblies namely church council, Presbytery, Synod and General Synod or Assembly].’5

The preamble says that Christ is acknowledged as Head of the Church and that He governs his Church through office-bearers, who associate with each other in the ecclesiastical assemblies. It fails to say that the Jesus Christ exercises his rule and reign through his Word and the Holy Spirit using office-bearers. What the preamble fails to stipulate can be considered a major theological shortfall that may have implications for church leadership and the organizational structure in the Church. One wonders whether this does not lead to problems in the discourse on theology and church polity in the Nkhoma Synod. It seems that leadership and authority of the church office-bearers in the Nkhoma Synod are completely identified with the rule and authority of Christ himself. There is a danger therefore that the leadership and authority of church office-bearers in the Nkhoma Synod can be identified too completely with the rule and authority of Christ because the office-bearers may claim unchallengeable possession of the power and authority of Christ. Consequently, they seem to claim the exclusive right to take into their hands the rule of Christ through His Word and Spirit. Thus they tend to take Christ’s place, by which they practically run the risk of excluding Christ’s authority and rule in the Church. Considering this danger, a Dutch Reformed theologian, Willie Jonker (1965:32) wrote:

‘For this reason Reformers rejected the idea of identity between Christ and the office-bearers as well as the idea that the office-office-bearers possess any personal authority to govern the church. They contend that the Word of God alone should rule in the church and that office-bearers have no other duty than to administer the Word through which

5

(16)

Christ rules. For this reason they see church government as simply making room for the rule of the Word of God alone …’

Coertzen (2004:99) concurs with Jonker when he stresses that

‘Christ makes use of the Word to rule his church and should the Church in any way depart from the Word, then it no longer has any grounds upon which to stand for witnessing in the world … The authority with which the Church acts in the world is also linked to the fact that the Church as the body of Jesus Christ is not merely a human association with rules for mutual communication that were drawn by the members.’

Coertzen (2004:103) argues further:

‘However, it is by no means an imaginary danger that the church can emphasize its government to such an extent by mean of the Word that there is no room for the work of the Holy Spirit. Should this happen then the danger will be so great that dealing with scripture can become a mere human event.’

The main element of the service of office-bearers in the church is the ministry of the Word and Holy Spirit just like the government of Christ in His church is maintained fully through the Word of and the Holy Spirit. Thus, office-bearers are expected to persuade each other and the congregation from the Word of God, and make decisions after being convinced by the Holy Spirit.

At this point, it should be emphasized that though Jesus Christ is physically not present, He is still present, leading, guiding, directing, and ruling His Church through his Word and Holy Spirit using office-bearers in rapport with the congregation. He has a highest authority and final say in the church by means of His Word and Spirit. For this reason the Church, including particular office-bearers and other members, must listen to Christ and obey him (cf. Rev. 2:7, 11, 29, 3:6, 13, 22).

We observed that Zolamulira: Zopangana ndi Zolangiza fails to stipulate that Christ executes His rule and reign through His Word and Spirit. Considering this what is then the

(17)

relationship between Christ and church bearers? As already, stated, church office-bearers are supposed to be organs or means by or through which Christ govern His church.6 From a Reformed South African background J.M. Vorster (2003:35), following Calvin (Institutes, IV.VI),7 says:

‘Every office-bearer is an instrument in the hands of Christ and is therefore responsible to Christ. There is equality in responsibility and this principle constitutes the equality of the offices. The three offices in the church are also no subordinate to each other.’

Interestingly, in Vorster’s understanding equality in power and authority among the office-bearers is based on the concept of the confession that Jesus is the only Head of the Church as well as on the application that office-bearers are instruments which Christ uses when governing the church. Also from a Reformed South African background, Malan Nel (1980:30) points out:

‘The primary function of the office-bearers is to create both space and channels- and to be channels- for the authority and dominion of Christ. Therefore the office-bearers are above all, servants serving the loving care and the reign of Christ through his Spirit and Word …’

We have noted the serious problem that the preamble omits the notion that Jesus Christ exercises his reign through his Word and Spirit and implies that the authority of the office-bearers is identical with the authority of Christ and that office-office-bearers are considered to have unchallengeable power to taken over the rule of Christ, or exclude it. I want to suggest that this problem may only be addressed or avoided or prevented if we accept and emphasize that Jesus Christ only rules the church through his Word and Spirit, using office-bearers as organs. In order to picture the context of my suggestion the study focuses on the headship of Christ over the Church and authority, leadership, and organizational structure within the Nkhoma Synod between 1889 and 2007. Not only the notions of the theologians cited above will be

6

Cf. Preamble of Zolamulira: Zopangana ndi Zolangiza

7

Throughout this study, we shall use the Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Region, edited by John T. McNeill and translated by Ford Lewis Battles.

(18)

considered, but also those of other Reformed thinkers on Church polity, such as Karl Barth, Louis Berkhof, Idzerd Van Dellen, Martin Monsma and Richard De Ridder.

1.2. Some Ecclesiological Definitions

Three important ecclesiological remarks have to be made. First, the term ‘church and church government’ in this study is to be understood within the Trinitarian context of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The church is the Temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16), the Body of Christ (Eph. 1:23; 1Cor. 12:27), and implicitly the Temple of Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:19). Through these and other texts we notice that the Church belongs to the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When we say that Christ rules the Church we also mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit rule the church. Where is the Father is, there is the Son and the Holy Spirit; where the Son is, there is God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and where the Holy Spirit is, there is God the Father and the Son. The church belongs to the Triune God. The Acts and Reports of the Reformed Ecumenical council of 1968 present the following important comment regarding the relationship between the Triune God and the Church:

‘The church is the church of God the Father i.e. it is has its foundation in the divine election. To assert in the ecclesiological field that the God of the Church is and remain God the Father. … The Church however owes no less the church of God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. ... He gathers the church and so constitutes it. In addition, as the Head, He rules this body by His Word and Spirit. … The Church is also the church of the Holy Spirit. The Pneumatological aspect is just as good as essential as the theological and Christological aspects. ... Through the Holy Spirit … Christ gathers his Church. Spirit and Church never exchange places.’8

Each Person of the Trinity equally plays an important role in the ministry and church government. Therefore, the church is set in the position of dependence, and communion with each Person as its Sovereign Ruler because the three Persons of the Trinity are inseparable. Addition to this, I want to suggest that church polity discourse resulting from such a Trinitarian view be emphasized and maintained.

8

(19)

In The Nature and Purpose of the Church: A Stage on the Way to a Communion Statement (1998:10) the Church is described as a creation of the Word and the Holy Spirit and that it belongs to God. It further states that ‘the Word and Holy Spirit are inseparable.’ The document (1998:10) also clearly points out that

‘The Almighty God, who calls the Church into being and unites it to himself through his Word and Holy Spirit, is the Triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In its relationship to God, the Church is related to each of these divine Persons in a particular way.’

From this, I draw some ideas that are more general. Saying that Christ rules and reigns the Church through his Word and Holy Spirit means that every Person of the Trinity participates in every aspect of church polity and church government. The rule of Christ includes the reign of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Also, the leadership, authority and sovereignty of Christ, which are exemplified in Christ, the Head of the church, imply that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. No Person of the Trinity is subordinate to the other, though each One is distinct.

My second ecclesiological remark is that ‘church’ and ‘church government’ are to be understood within the context of the Kingdom of God9. Jeans S. Stromberg (2001:246) wrote, ‘At the very heart of the Church's vocation in the world is the proclamation of the kingdom of God inaugurated in Jesus the Lord, crucified and raised.’ This leads to questions such as: How is the Church related to the Kingdom of God? Are they essentially the same or distinct? Is there a link between the Kingdom and church government? I have searched for answers in the writings of Snyder, Ladd, Berkhof, Coertzen, Du Plooy and Vorster.

According to Howard A. Snyder (1991:67) a church is a body or an assembly of the worshippers as well as community or a communion of the faithful in heaven and on earth, while the Kingdom of God is a rule or a reign of God both in heaven and on earth. In Snyder’s understanding the Church is not the Kingdom of God, but there is strong connection between the two. Ladd (1994:109) gives his views on the same topic:

9

Coertzen (2004:79) suggests that the Kingdom indicates God’s sovereignty, kingship, his sphere of influence, or his subject as well as all that is related to them, covering the entire creation. Where the Kingship of Christ applies something of God’s Kingdom becomes visible. He (2004:81) stresses that ‘the Kingdom is where people bow before the Triune God, confess Jesus Christ’s kingship and live filled with the Holy Spirit in obedience to his Word, there God’s kingdom becomes visible, and God’s royal power and the royal law are maintained.

(20)

‘We must now examine the specific relationship between the Kingdom and the Church…. If the dynamic concept of the Kingdom is correct; it is never identified with the Church. The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign of kingly rule of God, the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In Biblical idiom, the, the Kingdom is not identified with its subject.’

According to Ladd the ‘Church’ is neither necessarily part of the ‘Kingdom’ nor synonymous to it. However, he (1994:109) is convinced that the mission of the Church is to witness ‘the Kingdom or God’s rulership’. As such both, the Church and the Kingdom of God are linked conceptually and theologically because the Church serves an agent or a channel for the reign of Jesus Christ.

Louis Berkhof (1996:579) takes a step further describing the relationship, which exists between the visible Church and the Kingdom of God on one hand, and between the invisible Church and the Kingdom of God on the other hand. He (1996:579) made the following observation worthy quoting at length:

‘While the Kingdom of God and the invisible Church are in a measure identical, they should nevertheless be fully distinguished. Citizenship in the one and membership in the other are equally determined by regeneration. It is impossible to be in the Kingdom of God without being in the Church as a mystical body of Christ. At the same time, it is possible to make a distinction between the point of view from which believers are called the Kingdom and from which they are called the Church. They constitute the Kingdom in their relation to God in Christ as their Ruler, and a Church in their separateness from the world in devotion to God and in their organic union with one another. As the Church they are called to be God’s instrument in preparing the way for and in introducing, the ideal order of things; and as a Kingdom they represent the initial realization of the ideal order among themselves.’

The key question in Berkhof’s vision is whether the visible Church and the Kingdom of God are identical, because some members of the former are also the members of the latter. Coertzen (2004:81) holds a similar view when he explains that the Church is not equivalent to the Kingdom although there is a connection between the two. He (2004:81) concludes:

(21)

‘One could say that the Kingdom also includes the Church. … The Church is present where these citizens of God’s Kingdom meet, form a community, receive the Gospel of the Kingdom in faith, and share in salvation of the Kingdom’

Berkhof also suggests that Christ is the sovereign ruler of both the Kingdom of God and of the Church. The Church is the instrument of the Kingdom of God. With this perspective the instrumentality of office-bearers in the government of the church is realized and implicitly stated. As regards to the relationship between the visible Church and the Kingdom of God, Berkhof (1996:579) asserted:

‘The visible Church and the Kingdom … may be identical, to a certain extent. The visible Church may certainly to belong to the Kingdom, to be a part of the Kingdom even to be the most important manifestation of the forces of the Kingdom. It partakes the characters of the invisible Church … as means for realization of the Kingdom of God. … It is of course subordinate to this as a means to an end. The Kingdom may be broader concept than the Church. It represents the dominion of God in every sphere of human endeavor.’

What comes out strongly from the quotations above is that the visible Church is an important part of the Kingdom (cf. Ladd 1991:11). Thus, a visible church is a means of realization of God’s Kingdom. Therefore, the Church is not the Kingdom, but a means of realizing the rule and reign of God. Berkhof does not, however, relate practically how the visible Church and Kingdom are connected in the rule and reign of Christ.

Du Plooy (1997:179) commented on how the concept of the Kingdom links to church polity:

‘When we take the Kingdom as our point of departure and consider that the organizational life is primarily concerned with the obedience to Christ in his reign as the ‘Head of the Church’, it becomes evident that it embraces more than the organization of the visible, empirical side of the Church. The purpose of the Church is to study in Scripture how Christ can penetrate into the hearts of his children through the administering of the keys of the Kingdom so that the Church can truly becomes the body of Christ’

(22)

Du Plooy’s remarks above seem to denote that the Kingdom is the starting point of church polity as a system of governance and as a branch of theology. This suggests that in church government one deals with the rule of Christ and with the Church’s obedience to him as her Head. This suggests the reason why some people thinking church polity must also be practice and studies within the context of the Kingdom.

The third ecclesiological remark concerns the question how different churches interpreted the phrase ‘Jesus Christ is Head of the Church’ in their church polity and church government. Coertzen (1998:15) summarized interpretations of various churches as follows:

‘Although all systems of church government admit that Christ is the ‘Head of the Church’, it has happened in history of the Church and theology that Christ’s headship has been interpreted differently; For Rome Christ’s Headship means that He manages by means of His deputy on earth, the pope (Code of Law 1983 and canon 331).

Coertzen (1998:15) proceeds to give an interpretation of the renowned first Protestant Reformer:

‘Martin Luther also experienced Christ government as real. For him Christ was the exclusive and highly personal Head of his Church, but spiritually, so that only the invisible Church as the body of Christ lives totally from Christ as Head through His life giving Spirit. … Luther and Lutheranism in fact greatly neglected the visible Church and left its government to the state’.

Having thus described the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran interpretations, Coertzen (1998:15) goes on to comment on the Collegial system of church government:

‘Collegialism went a step further. Like Luther for them Christ is the Head of the invisible Church, while according to them the government of the visible Church is transferred to the hands of the members. .. The Congregationalists transfer the authority in the church to the congregation that primarily exists as an individualistic group of members and secondly exists mutually independent of each other as parishes.’

(23)

It is striking to note that all denominations confess and acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Head of the Church, but they differ as to the way in which Jesus Christ is Head of Church. Coertzen (2004:95) summarizes the differences:

‘Rome substitutes the Pope for Him; Luther limits Him to the invisible Church, while Collegialism and Congregationalism, respectively regard the members and the local congregation as representatives and as a result transfers the sovereignty of the Church to those two bodies’.

Coertzen does not, however, explain how the Scottish Presbyterian system of church government interprets and applies the truth that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. According to Van Wyk (2004:164) Scottish Presbyterianism limits Christ to the invisible and substitutes Him for Highest assembly of the Church. In Coertzen’s observation of the interpretation of Reformed Church government Christ is not substituted for any person or governing assembly (2004:95), ‘The way in which Christ practices his authority and sovereignty over the church is through the ministry of the Word and through the Holy Spirit’. Coertzen’s observation is probably inspired by what the renowned 16th century Reformer, John Calvin (Institutes IV, VI, 1) wrote:

‘Now we must speak of the order by which the Lord willed his Church to be governed. He alone should rule and reign in the Church as well as has authority or pre-eminence in it. … Nevertheless because he does not dwell among us in visible presence (Mt. 26:11), we have said that he uses the ministry of men to declare openly his will as by mouth as sort of delegated work, not by transferring to them his right and honour, but only that through their mouths, he may do his work-just as a workman uses tools to do his work’

We have endeavoured to picture various opinions of different churches about Christ’s headship over the Church. These opinions have had enormous implications on the development of their church polity. They help to discover which interpretation was or is adopted by Nkhoma Synod. They may also help to trace the root cause of the problems related to church polity and church government that occurred in this church.

(24)

1.3. Research Question

The CCAP - Nkhoma Synod, previously called Dutch Reformed Mission Church, was founded in Nyasaland (today Malawi) on 28 November 1889. It was established through the missionary enterprise of the Cape Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (Pauw 1980:44). From the DRC, Nkhoma Synod inherited the following three the Reformed confessions: the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt (cf. Pauw 1980:327,329).10 Apart from being the doctrinal standards, these Confessions explicitly and implicitly contain theological tenets useful for practicing church order and church government.

In addition, the Nkhoma Synod prepared her own Church Order, called Zolamulira: Zolangiza ndi Zopangana, her own Catechism, Buku La Katekisima, and her Constitution. They were meant to promote order and unity in the Church. This means that if we want to describe the ecclesiology of the Nkhoma Synod we need to examine these documents. However, this needs to be done in the light of the three Reformed confessions mentioned above. In this study, we will pay special attention to the preamble of Zolamulira etc., particularly where it stipulates:

‘Ambuye wathu Yesu Kristu ndiye Mutu wa Eklesia ... Ulamuliro wake wa pa Eklesia uchitika ndi audindo monga abusa, oyang’anira (akuluampingo) ndi atumiki oyikidwira ntchitoyo [‘Our Lord Jesus Christ is the ‘Head of the Church’, his authority is exercised by office-bearers such as ministers, elders and deacons instituted for the service.’]

We already noted that the preamble of the Zolamulira fails to indicate, that Christ, whereas being the Head of the Church, exercises his rule and reign through his Word and Spirit. This theological deficiency might have had an implication for discourse on church leadership, organizational structure and church polity within the Nkhoma Synod. Therefore, the main research question that this study attempts to answer is: In what way is what the preamble of Zolamulira. etc stipulates that Christ governs his Church through offices bearers (ministers, elder, and deacons) influenced negatively the development of leadership, authority and organizational structure within the Nkhoma Synod? In order to explore the main question the following three sub-questions will be considered:

10

(25)

1. What is the point of departure of the discourse on church polity of the Nkhoma Synod regarding the rule of Christ in the Church?

2. In what way has the Nkhoma Synod engaged with the Reformed confessions in its church polity discourse?

3. In its understanding of the concept of the headship of Christ over the Church is the CCAP – Nkhoma Synod more ‘Dutch Reformed’ or ‘more Scottish Presbyterian’?

It will be necessary to consider these questions seriously if we are to assess and evaluate how what is stipulated in preamble of the Zolamulira, etc. influenced the discourse on church polity and church government within the Nkhoma Synod.

However, although our main intention is to investigate the impact of what is stated in the Preamble, it is important also to examine the viewpoints of other churches on the same subject. Throughout history, many churches have found it difficult to live under the reality of the direct rule of Christ. Subsequently they have come up with different theories to explain how Christ rules the Church. The Roman Catholic Church takes its point of departure as the rule of Christ through Pope and bishops, whereas other Episcopal churches take as their starting point the rule through bishops (cf. Berkhof 1996:580,581,582). For Lutheran and Anglican Churches Christ’s dominion takes place through the state (cf. Vorster 2003:3). Congregational Churches went further. For them Christ exercises his rule through every member and the government of the Church is transferred into the hands of the members of the congregations (Coertzen 2004:94). Collegial Churches (including Scottish Presbyterians) stress that Christ executes his government through the representatives of church members. In this regard, they are of the opinion that the authority is centred in the ecclesiastical assemblies of presbyters (cf. Van Wyk 2004:167; cf. Berkhof 1996:582).

The Reformed tradition developed a distinct understanding probably due to the profound influence of John Calvin (Institutes, IV, VI, 1) who wrote:

‘Why does God need men’s service? Now we must speak of the order by which the Lord willed his Church to be governed. He alone should rule and reign in the Church as well as has authority or pre-eminence in it. … Nevertheless because He does not dwell among us in visible presence (Mt 26:11), we have said that he uses the ministry of men to declare openly his will as by mouth as sort of delegated work not by transferring to them his right and honour but only that through their mouths, he may do his work-just as a workman uses tools to do his work’

(26)

Elsewhere he (Institutes, IV.IX.1) wrote:

‘Now it is Christ’s right to preside over all councils and to have no man share his dignity. But I say that He presides only when the whole assembly is governed by His Word and Spirit.’

Calvin’s views on the way Christ rules the Church is reworded by Van Wyk in his summary of the Reformed Churches’ view (2004:165), ‘The Presbyterial-synodical system of church government takes as its departure point the rule of Christ through His Word and Spirit using office-bearers in the visible church’. Coertzen (2004:95) observed as follows:

‘Reformed Church governments also confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Head of his Church. For example article 31 of the Dutch Confession of Faith states that Jesus Christ is the universal Superintendent and the only Head of Church, while article 29 of the same confession of faith confesses that the true Church is where people behave themselves according to the Word of God, reject all that is in conflict and acknowledges Christ as the only Head.’

Coertzen (2004:95) went on stating that:

‘The way in which Christ practices his authority and sovereignty over the Church is through the ministry of the Word and through his Sprit. This takes place directly in the heart of each believer, but also through the ministry of people who apply for this’.

We conclude that the Reformed Churches’ understanding of the rule of Christ in the Church is distinct in the sense that it is a well-balanced view on the Christological, pneumatological and ecclesiological realities. This understanding demonstrates that the Reformed discourse on church polity has been the result of the work of the Holy Spirit, in maintaining the rule of Christ through His Word using office-bearers (cf. Van Wyk 2004:165,166).

In view of this, we can also conclude that the Nkhoma Synod’s understanding regarding the rule of Christ, i.e. through office-bearers was influenced by a Scottish-Presbyterian-oriented collegial system of church government or by a combination of Episcopalism and Collegialism.

(27)

This leads us to the question whether the Reformed Confessions have played a significant role in the church polity discourse within the Nkhoma Synod. This question will be addressed fully in chapter four when we shall be dealing with the church polity documents of the Nkhoma Synod and again in chapter five when we shall be highlighting the church-political developments within the Nkhoma Synod from 1889 to 2007.

It cannot be denied that the theological deficiency, which has been detected in the preamble of the Zolamulira, etc., has had an impact on the church polity and church government within the Nkhoma Synod. However, this conclusion must not be viewed negatively only, but on a positive note it should function as point of departure in the understanding of the discourse on church polity discourse of a Malawian church and of churches in the whole southern part of Africa. As such it is an invitation to further theological discussion, in order to get nearer to Biblical truth.

1.4. Hypothesis

The research question formulated above can be rephrased as a hypothesis or a statement, which is to be proved. We state that the discourse on church polity and practice in the Nkhoma Synod of the CCAP have been negatively influenced by the understanding that Christ as the only Head of the Church exercises his rule and reign through office-bearers. There are four possible aspects to this hypothesis.

First, this understanding might have led to a tendency of identifying the power and authority of office-bearers with that of Christ. Consequently the office-bearers seem to claim unchallengeable possession of Christ’s power and authority in the church. Hence Christ’s direct rule through His Word and Spirit is excluded.

Secondly, as the seat of church authority is centred in the highest court (Synod), there is a tendency of regarding the local church court as the lowest ecclesiastical court without any significant right in its own affairs. Thus, in practice the authority of Christ is claimed by office-bearers who constitute or represent the highest ecclesiastical court (cf. chapters five and six).

Thirdly, the Nkhoma Synod in its church polity discourse has failed to engage with the Reformed tradition found in the Three Reformed Symbols of Unity. The following questions may be raised: Is there any congruity in matters of church polity between these Symbols of Unity and the Zolamulira, etc particularly with regard to how Christ rules the

(28)

Church? Do the church polity discourse and church government of the Nkhoma Synod more ‘Scottish Presbyterian than ‘Dutch Reformed’?

The last question is corroborated by the fact that the Nkhoma Synod had adopted the Scottish Presbyterian view on the departure point, which asserts that Christ rules the Church through office-bearers (Van Wyk 2004:165, 167). As a result autocracy, and clerocracy became the ruling systems of the Church, parity office-bearers, congregations and assemblies not being considered, church offices or ecclesiastical posts being viewed in terms of rank, status, and dignity, delegates in the ecclesiastical assemblies not persuading each other from the Word of God and voting becoming a premise for reaching an ecclesiastical decision (cf. Vorster 2003:55).

Msangaambe (2011:63); Paas (2007:8,183); Van Wyk (2004:10, 16), Brown (2004:72, 78) and Pauw (1980:393) have noted the tendencies above. For them they are the result of the profound influence of the Scottish and Malawian politics and society. Paas (2007:8) says:

‘In Presbyterian and other denominations, the government of the Church has often become an imitation of the ruling structure in state and society. Depending on the prevailing culture and political climate, the minister is the principle leader. He may behave as an autocratic ruler, or he may have adopted the style of a modern manager in a more democratic way. Under him the elders are a body of executives, sometimes not much more than just counselors’ .

Msangaambe (2011:63) observes:

‘Approximately 70 of Nkhoma Synod members including ordained ministers have background experience of the Nyawu occult. To some extent, there is a legacy in this deeply rooted element of the Chewa culture in the Church leadership. The people in the church positions want to be obeyed unquestionably. If a subordinate dares to ask questions, even clarity’s sake, this is often regarded as defiance’

Van Wyk (2004:167) says:

‘The Presbyterian system of church government became characteristics of the government of the Reformed Churches in Central Africa. In these Churches, the emphasis falls on the maintenance of the institution through executive functionaries in accordance with the comprehensive law book.’

(29)

He (2004:167) further concludes that ‘the cause is found in the Scottish Presbyterian church polity uncritically accepted by the Dutch Reformed missionaries and uncritically maintained by the Africa Church.’ This study will shed more light on how such tendencies have had an impact on the church polity discourse and practice within the Nkhoma Synod from 1889 to 2007.

To summarize: It is the hypothesis of this study that the omission of the phrase “through his Word and Spirit” in the Church Order reveals and mirrors a theological deficiency in the church polity discourse and practice of the CCAP, Nkhoma Synod.

1.5. Delimitation and Methods

Multi-disciplinary insights relevant to secular fields within Malawi have to be taken into account, but since this study is an ecclesiological study, it will only touch some social-political, economical, and religious developments within Malawi that in one way or other influenced the church polity discourse within the Nkhoma Synod. As such, the study has strived to be theological, seeking to avoid any social-political, economical, religious, or ecclesiastical bias. As an ecclesiological study, this dissertation overlaps with matters concerning Christology, Pneumatology and Hermeneutics. It is also a historical study, because it describes the history of the development of church offices, assemblies and ecclesiastical posts in the Nkhoma Synod.

The questions and hypotheses described in sections 3 and 4 require respectively inductive and deductive approaches (cf. Mouton 2001:117). Besides, we need descriptive and explanatory methods, when we describe the concept of the headship of Christ as stipulated in some articles of Reformed Confessions and the preamble of the Zolamulira etc. (cf. Mouton 2001:54,113), and when we explain the understanding of the Nkhoma Synod regarding the rule of Christ in the Church (cf. Mouton 2001:53).

As one of the serving ministers of the Nkhoma Synod and a former lecturer at the Josophat Mwale Theological Institute, a College where the Nkhoma Synod trains its ministers, the researcher found himself in the position of using the participatory-observation method. He had an advantage to interact with fellow ministers and students, which helped him to acquire knowledge of the culture, church government, and church-politics within the Nkhoma Synod. However, he is aware that the weakness whereby he himself as insider might

(30)

have been bound by a certain perspective and therefore he might have been blinded to other perceptions and realities of church polity discourse of the Nkhoma Synod.

1.6. Motivation of the Research

The researcher is a serving minister of the Nkhoma Synod, and as such for a period of nearly ten years, he was involved in the training of ministers, and in the ministry in various local churches and presbyteries, and at the synod level. He stresses that his findings do not point to any particular person or individual in the Nkhoma Synod.

This dissertation was born out of the researcher’s experience when he was lecturing Ecclesiology (Church History and Church polity) at Josophat Mwale Theological Institute from 2006 to 2010. Josophat Mwale Theological Institute is an institute responsible for Theological training in Nkhoma Synod including the offering of in-service courses for serving pastors. A course offered by the institute is Systematic Theology, Congregational Studies, Missiology, Pastoral Counseling, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Spirituality, Bible Interpretation, Homiletics and Church Administration.

The researcher observed that the subject of Church polity was treated under Church Administration and there was lack of theological approach to the subject of Church Administration. The course inter alia covered the following areas: administering the church council, presbytery and Synod meetings, office work and keeping church records was not approached theologically. As the result student-ministers graduated before 2007 were not introduced to Church polity as a distinct subject. The approach was not theological as well.

The intention of this dissertation is three-fold. First, it seeks to make a modest contribution to the theological debate on christocracy and pneumatocracy,11 facilitating an understanding of the rule of Christ through His Word and Spirit in using offices or ministries. Secondly, it contributes to a constructive development of Reformed Church polity discourse. Thirdly, it aims at providing resource materials for the training of pastors, elders, and deacons in Central Africa, especially Malawi.

11

Christocracy and Pneumatocracy is the researcher‘s designation. The former refers to the rule or the government of Christ in the church while the latter refers to the rule or reign of Holy Spirit in the church. The two terms go together because where Christ rules the Holy Spirit also rules.

(31)

1.7. Review of the Relevant Literature

This research-project is a literary study involving critical evaluation and examinations of the following texts as primary sources: the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt, the Buku La Katekisma (Nkhoma Synod Catechism), Zolamulira: Zopangana ndi Zolangiza (the Church Order of the Nkhoma Synod. The researcher endeavored to scrutinize, examine these documents, and draw conclusions from them. Special attention was paid on the articles that deal with church polity and church government. What is particularly interesting is the fact that these documents contain information concerning how Jesus Christ exercises his rule in the church. The understanding of the Nkhoma Synod is based on the preamble of the Zolamulira: Zopangana ndi Zolangiza stipulates. The researcher’s main task was to investigate how what the preamble stipulates influenced the church polity discourse within the Nkhoma Synod. He drew conclusions by interpreting the data in the light of the Reformed thought contained in the Reformed confessions above.

The researcher accessed archival sources namely, Mawu A Msonkhano (Minutes of the Council of Congregations, Nkhoma Presbytery and the Nkhoma Synod), Constitutions and Kuunika Newsletters and reports). 12 The documents were accessed from the Nkhoma Synod Museum in Malawi and the Dutch Reformed Church Archives at Stellenbosch in Cape Town. The researcher found that DRC at Stellenbosch is the only Archive apparently having valuable copies of complete sets of minutes, extracts, reports, and constitutions of the Nkhoma Synod.13 What has been investigated is the question whether the Nkhoma Synod engaged in its practice of church polity and church government with the Reformed confessions. These sources provided reliable and trust-worth information suitable and relevant for this study.

12

The researcher possesses the English and Chichewa reports and (photo) copies of the Minutes of the Nkhoma Synod (previously the DRCM then the Nkhoma Presbytery), dating from 1894 to the present. In Malawi, particularly in the store-room of the Nkhoma Synod offices, in the Museum and in the Josophat Mwale Theological Institute (JMTI) Library, the Minutes are kept in bundles. They are labeled Mawu a Msonkhano a Bungwe Lo Tsogolera (Minutes of Moderamen meetings) and Mawu a Msonkhano a Synod wa Nkhoma (Minutes of the Nkhoma Synod). The researcher donated to JMTI Library photocopied copies of the Minutes, which he received as a gift from the DRC Archives in Stellenbosch. The Nkhoma Press store-room and the JMTI Library contain old editions of the Kuunika newsletters dating from 1918 to the 1990s. He is grateful for all the books newsletters which he was allowed to borrow from JMTI for a period.

13

In the DRC Archives at Stellenbosch, the Minutes and Reports are kept in the books labeled: Malawi Notules, Nkhoma Synod, KS 1031 (1903-1934, 1935-1961), KS 2487 (1962-1964); KS 2170 (1966-1971), KS 2488 (1968-1995); KS 2504 (1988-1990) and KS 2505 (1980-1984) and Reports, copies of the deeds of Agreements, Constitutions of the Blantyre Synod, Livingstonia Synod, Nkhoma Synod and the General Synod, periodicals and some editions of the Mthenga and Kuunika newsletters.

(32)

Apart from the above mentioned primary sources, the researcher consulted the works written by the renowned 16th century Reformer John Calvin. It is fascinating to note that Calvin’s ideas have also influenced ecclesiastical resolutions about church orders and church polity in many parts of Africa and elsewhere. His ideas also stimulate scientific research in Reformed Church polity in many Reformed Churches and Institutions in Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. The researcher is of opinion that his work is perhaps also the result of such influence.

Many secondary sources were consulted, e.g. the Reformed Theologian Karl Barth, some recent Reformed Ecclesiologists namely Berkhof, De Ridder, and Dallen Monsma and the contemporary Reformed ecclesiologists namely Pieter Coertzen, Koos Jurgens Vorster, and documents of some regional and International Reformed bodies. He visited Josophat Mwale Theological Library at Nkhoma Synod headquarters in Lilongwe and Zomba Theological College Library in Zomba Malawi and Stellenbosch University Library and he used personal books. What is evident is that Calvin’s ideas has had inspired lively interest in various aspects and themes of Reformed church polity which the researchers attempted to study (cf. Vorster 2003:4).

In addition, ministers and other members of the Nkhoma Synod made available to the researcher some other secondary sources, e.g. those written by Jonathan Kamwana (1997), Hellenman Kamnkhwani (1989), Attie Labuschaigne (2002), Josophat Samuel Mwale, Killion Mgawi (2009), Paas (2007), Christoff Martin Pauw (1980), W. Retief (1958), Jurgens Van Wyk (2004), Gerdien Verstraelen-Gilhuis (1982), Isabel Apawo (2000), Joda-Mbewe (2002), Willie Zeze (2006), and Chatha E. Msangaambe (2011).

The findings of these authors demonstrate the problems of legalism, clerocracy, autocracy, hierarchicalism among office-bearers are real in the Nkhoma Synod. However, they differ with regards to the root cause of the problems. Many have blamed the DRC missionaries, the indigenous leaders, the political systems, and the society. Critically considering the findings of these researchers, this study suggests that the problems were also caused by the Church’s failure to engage with the articles of the Reformed confessions particularly those that deal with issues church polity and church government.

It is now right at this point to discuss the work by some researchers who have published relevant information on the CCAP Nkhoma Synod in various fields and from different perspectives. A review of this literature will show the gap between existing and required knowledge, so that this study will not be a duplicate of these publication and will be an addition to existing knowledge.

(33)

W. Retief observed that the missionaries, whom the DRC sent to found and serve in Nkhoma Synod, had a paternalistic attitude towards the black ministers, elders, and deacons. This is evident in the following quotation: ‘Dr Murray laid stress on our guidance of the Natives, who should be treated as our children and we should be responsible for them’. The missionaries aimed at winning confidence of native leaders, but their paternalism may have contributed to clericalism, autocracy, and legalism.

Christoff Martin Pauw in his systematic and a comprehensive history of the mission in Malawi by the Cape Synod of the DRC from 1889, and of the Synod of Nkhoma, surveyed developments of various initial institutions, i.e. of the Mission Council, the Church Council, the Councils of Congregations. He described the emergence of Presbytery, Synod and General Synod, and of the Constitutions of the Nkhoma Synod until 1962. Thus he gives important information on the development of Church polity within the Nkhoma Synod. First he (1980:396) observes that the missionaries had a paternalistic attitude towards the indigenous people. They wanted to do too much for the people and too little with them. The DRC missionaries took a long time to hand over the Church to the local leaders. Secondly, he (Pauw 1980:392) found that the creation of the position of General Secretary as a permanent functionary was not based on the Reformed practice. It rather fitted in an Episcopalian system (Pauw 1980:392-393). This is how (1980:394) he commented on it:

‘No Moderator or General Secretary should ever assume the position of or be called ‘head’ of the Church and for one member of the church to hold a position of power and authority in a permanent or semi-permanent capacity could bring this about.’

Pauw (1980:394) suggests to distinguish the office of the Synod’s Secretary from that of an administrative officer to be appointed as a mere employee acting under supervision of the Synod. He sensed the danger that the accumulation of power in the hands of the General Secretary could replace Christ’s headship by human headship. Therefore Pauw challenged the Nkhoma Synod to acknowledge the Biblical and Reformed view that there is one head of the church, Jesus Christ (1980:396).

Gerdien Verstraelen-Gilhuis touched the issues of clericalism, and hierarchical tendencies. As will be corroborated later she showed that the type of Church polity found in